My wife and I currently have two CR-Vs ('18 and '16), but I am seriously considering an Accord when the lease on the '16 is up in a few months.
However, the one thing that is giving me pause about going back to a sedan is the IIHS data showing fewer fatalities in SUVs than sedans (for example, the 2014 or equivalent Accord has 36 deaths per million vehicles registered, while CR-V AWD has 14. Data is here:
https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/driver-death-rates).
The CR-V would still be my primary family vehicle and the Accord would be my commuter car, but my kids would still occasionally end up in the Accord, especially if my wife and I are each taking one kid on separate outings.
I know the chances of a serious accident are slim, and it's even less of an issue since my kids won't often be in the Accord, and if they are, it'll be for short, local trips. But I'm still concerned about the possibility of them being in a potentially unsafer (is that a word?) car.
What I'm wondering, though, is this: while simple physics (if a big car hits a small car, the small car would sustain more damage) is at play here, I wonder if the IIHS data isn't an accurate depiction of safety, since correlation doesn't equal causation. Obviously if a Suburban hits a Fit, the Suburban will be safer. But the weight difference is not as big when comparing a compact SUV and a midsize sedan. Should other factors be taken into account? For example, sedans are more frequently used by taxi drivers, etc, so they are more likely to be on the road for, say, 12 hours a day. An SUV on the road for an hour or two each day is much less likely to be in an accident. Can that be enough to cause the discrepancy?
